Member Profile

Israel and old South Africa were always close allies. The Zionists and the Afrikaners had the same siege mentality, as well as the same sense of ethno-religious mission that could not be denied without forfeiting the nation's raison d'etre. They learned from each other how to oppress and spin it to the rest of the world. Even their nuclear programs were a partnership.

I have no doubt that many Israelis look at SA's recent history and fear the past may be prologue and are emboldened by that fear to greater oppression and intractability: their regime is unsustainable except through sheer will. First the West is embarrassed into withdrawing active support, then come sanctions (financial, cultural, etc.), then the people's own resolve weakens, and finally political power - and with it, the identity of the nation - is yielded to demographics. They think that Israeli Jews will become like white South Africans: those who built the country becoming unwanted guests in their own [former] home, systematically discriminated against and deprived in the name of majoritarianism.

It's ironic then that many Afrikaners considered liberal and Anglo-oriented SA Jews to be a hypocritical fifth column: enjoying the full privileges of whiteness while also being some of the loudest white voices - and deepest pockets - in favor of abolishing apartheid.

Netanyahu either believes or is channeling the fear that any Palestinian state will be a hyper-Arab and hyper-Islamic no-go zone for Jews, yet it is assumed that Palestinians who want to live in Israel must be free to do so.

In Netanyahu's mind, carving off a Palestinian state and then A) granting right of return to Palestinians displaced from what remains as Israel, B) granting them (and their high birth rate) the full rights of Israeli citizenship, and finally C) affirming the right of these Israeli Arabs to democratically place restrictions on the "Jewishness" of Israel in the name of multiculturalism seems hopelessly lopsided.

The only way that a two-state solution could possibly work for a right-wing Zionist would be if all Israeli Arabs were denaturalized and deported to the Palestinian state and Israel's right to be as culturally and politically Jewish as it pleases - pluralism be damned - is institutionalized in Israeli law and affirmed by the international community.

Israel has a powerful patron and so does Syria. Qaddafi did not have a patron and neither do most African countries today - though during the Cold War many brutal dictators flourished: from Idi Amin and Mobutu to various Communist warlords. South Africa's apartheid regime did not fall until years after the USSR did: i.e. when anti-communism was no longer a valid excuse to defend a regime that most people considered repugnant. They became an embarrassment (as Qaddafi did, who'd otherwise been very well-behaved) and paid the price for that.

Race has got nothing to do with it. Sharon could have been an Ethiopian Jew with dark skin and nappy hair and he'd still have been safe. This is because the US is deeply invested in Israel regardless of who's in charge and will not allow any judgment of the country, its policies, or those who plan and/or execute them.

Corruption in the global south is less about personal gain and more about family/tribal/sectarian loyalties. In those societies, you'd be seen as a bad person if you didn't do favors for your family, friends, family of friends, friends of family, guys from your hometown, coreligionists, etc.

The American attitude that a commercial transaction between complete strangers with no other link or interest in each other is somehow more ethical is frankly alien to them. It makes us look like a nation of mercenaries.

Also, even the selfish element of global south corruption is different, being more status-oriented than money-oriented. By being in a position to do favors for people, you are seen as a person of ability, influence, and honor. You're not doing it simply for a short-term payback, but to pull them into your web of dependency and tribute, where they (and their relatives and posterity) will pay you back far more over time.

The American people won't wake up. They prefer the dream of American exceptionalism: unchallengeable military power, best health care in the world, etc. ... and they definitely don't want people darker than themselves to benefit from a change in government spending priorities. Conservatives even view white recipients of government aid as somehow morally depraved or even mentally defective.

Why do we want the Muslim Brotherhood to be active in Egyptian politics? Why would the Egyptians themselves want it?

People can be for parliamentary democracy and not be liberals. It makes perfect sense for the MB to embrace democracy then and now when the Egyptian military keeps proving to them that they can't gain power any other way. Turkey is much the same way: the JDP got power by portraying itself as democrats against de facto military rule and by appealing to populist aspirations and resentments against a secular, Westernized urban elite.

But what happens when populist aspirations and resentments are themselves Islamist? What is the "silent majority" of an Arab and Islamic society likely to vote for?